Enriching Child Psychology Courses with a Preschool Journal Option

Bloom (1956) pioneered the measurement of learning outcomes with a taxonomy of educational objectives, but educators often ignore affective learning objectives and focus on attaining cognitive objectives. This study examined student journals as a way to correct the overemphasis on cognitive objectives. Results suggested that course expectations and affective journal outcomes were important correlates of student evaluations of course outcomes even after controlling for the instructor, student gender, and student achievement. These findings have important implications for the use of student journals and for interventions aimed at increasing student evaluations of course outcomes.

Section: Student Journals As a Way To Address Affective Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Student Journals to Stimulate Authentic Learning: Balancing Bloom's Cognitive and Affective Domains

Bolin

Khramtsova

Saarnio

2005

“…Interested readers are encouraged to review the original sources as they plan their own writing activities. Writing activities incorporated in courses include the use of journals, logs, and autobiographies (Anderson, 1982;Brender, 1982;Hettich, 1976Hettich, , 1980McManus, 1986a;Snodgrass, 1985;Sugar & Livosky, 1988;Terry, 1984;Wallace, 1986; R. W. White, 1974); case studies (Klos, 1976;McManus, 198613;Mueller, 1985;Vande Kemp, 1980;R. W. White, 1974); formal research projects (Kaplan, 1974;Snodgrass, 1985); term papers (Brender, 1982;Choa, 1987;Klugh, 1983); essays (Beers, 1986;Bennett, 1985;Ferguson, 1986;Polyson, 1983Polyson, , 1985; abstracts and critiques of the work of others (Gardner, 1977;Klugh, 1983;Snodgrass, 1985); and various assignments used in combination (Beers, 1985;Blevins-Knabe, 1987;Snodgrass, 1985).…”

Section: Writing Activities I N Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Mathews, 1978), the positive consequences of online retrievall instruction for undergraduates (Feinberg et al, 1981), the effects of a PSI component on the improvement of student writing skills (Allen, 1984), the differences in final course grades between students choosing and not --choosing to complete a project requiring a journal (Sugar & Livosky, 1988), the effect of a letter-writing activity on student attitude change (Charlesworth & Slate. 1986).…”

Section: Writing Activities I N Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning about Writing, Thinking about Teaching

McGovern

Hogshead

1990

A student's story and our participation on a general education renewal project prompted us to learn more about writing. In the process, we discovered the writing activities developed by psychologists, the strategies for assessing writing used by colleagues in other disciplines, and the means used by departments and universities to develop effective writing programs. The theme of this article is that learning about writing led us to think more about our teaching and about how our students learn.Five years ago, one of our department's outstanding undergraduate students told this story. After 52 semester hours of psychology, she had written only three papers; two were for the first author's Psychology and Religious Experience course during her last semester at the university, the third was a formal research report for Experimental Methods. When she took an elective literature course in her senior year, the English faculty member took her aside after review. ing her initial papers and inquired about her writing experience. His assessment of her deficit stunned her. Fortunately, she had found in this faculty member a splendid mentor who began a crash course in bringing her to a college senior level of literacy.As we came to find out, her story was not unusual. But her story prompted us to learn about writing and to think more about our teaching. The next year, in a Seminar in the Teaching of Psychology, the two of us began to read the literature in composition journals and texts on writing practices and student learning. With others in the seminar, we agreed to add writing components to our courses. It was an eye-opening year with many trials and many errors. After this seminar, both of us continued to read, to teach, and to assign vvriting tasks in our courses.Since 1986, we have been involved in a university-wide project on the definition and assessment ofgeneral education. Of special interest is the work of the writing team. Six faculty from different disciplines and professional schools, working with the two of us, completed an evaluation of writing intensive, upper division courses. Teachers were interviewed, 300 students were surveyed and tested, portfolios were developed, and postsemester evaluations were completed. 'Two writing-across-the-curriculum scholars, Arthur Young and Barbara Walvoord, came to campus as consultants. They expanded our understanding of our students' writing, evaluated our university program, and recommended alternative strategies for faculty development and program evaluation. Our university is now developing upper division writing programs in a variety of major fields and professional schools.Our efforts to understand students' writing began, therefore, with a response to one student's story. First, we learned about writing with others in the psychology departmen.t; then, we continued with colleagues throughout the university. We learned to conceptualize student writing as a complex means to achieve several ends. We also learned that thinking about writing forces us to think more carefu...

“…The only references to extra credit that we located were articles describing specific act~vities or a s s i p ments that can he used fnr extra credit (Rauer & Snizek, 1989;LeUnes. 1984;Oley, 1992;Sugar & Livosky, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood, Sweat, and Trivia: Faculty Ratings of Extra-Credit Opportunities

Hill

Palladino

Eison

1993

Nornrrss. Honrrcks, and Stevenson (1989) found that faculty in higher edrrcatiirn hud mixed attitudes ~(rncernin~ the lac of extra credit. In this article, u~e present our study ofpsychology farulfy u~ho rated each rrf 39 extra-nedit ol~portunities on three dimensirm: their use rrf the item, its educutirm~ vulue, and the likelihard rhat all sttulents uould be able m armplete the oplmrtrcnit? (access). Appmximately 82% of respondents r~pmted usincextra nedit. Sipificunt positive correlution~ wne obruined between rated educatrrmul talue and use of extra nedit, as well as mtings for use and access. The pmentace of reportal use in our study sugesrs thut psycho lo^). faculry are likel? to rcse extra nedit.Alrhou~h opinions cuncerning the use of extra nedit varied dramu tic all^, ihc most communly used extra-nedit opportunities wne those rated to haw the highest edricational value.